In the 29-page order, Van Tatenhove wrote that the case isn't about the effectiveness of the vaccines or "whether the government, at some level, and in some circumstances, can require citizens to obtain vaccines." He stressed that Biden "likely lacks the authority" to order them to get inoculated.
Van Tatenhove wrote that the question presented was "narrow," adding that the president can't use "congressionally delegated authority to manage the federal procurement of goods and services to impose vaccines on the employees of federal contractors and subcontractors."
The judge granted a request for a preliminary injunction by the attorneys general of Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee.
In a statement, Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost also said that the matter is about Biden's mandate, not the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines. (Related: Breaking: U.S. District Judge STRIKES DOWN Biden’s vax mandate for federal contractors.)
Biden signed the mandate on Sept. 9. Weeks later, the White House required contractors to force all workers to get vaccinated against the coronavirus.
Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said that while there would be some religious and disability exemptions, most would be subject to a 75-day grace period for getting vaccinated.
If employees refused to sign up for vaccination within that time, they will undergo "the standard H.R. process" that includes progressive disciplinary action. However, at least one major labor union challenged the mandate even before Biden delivered his speech.
Contractors who refused to abide by the order, which originally set a Dec. 8 deadline, could lose the government’s business.
The states charged that the vaccine mandate is both illegal and unconstitutional, partly because it has been imposed without checking "important aspects surrounding the mandate," such as:
The government disagreed and argued that Biden does have authority to regulate contractors under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, noting that courts have ruled that the president can pursue "efficient and economic" procurement.
Van Tatenhove sided with the states. The judge said that the defendants didn't name one instance when the services act was used to declare a "wide and sweeping public health regulation as mandatory vaccination for all federal contractors and subcontractors."
He was also concerned that the mandate "intrudes on an area that is traditionally reserved to the states," citing the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Under the preliminary injunction, the vaccine mandate is temporarily blocked in the three states. There's a chance that this could turn into a permanent block or eventually be allowed to take effect.
A preliminary injunction has already been entered against the Biden administration's healthcare worker vaccine mandate, along with a similar mandate for private businesses.
There's a chance that the Biden administration will appeal these injunctions, as it did with other similar cases. With the rulings, the effects of the mandate are postponed until the issue is fully played out in the judicial system.
In another case also involving Ohio, U.S. District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty ruled that healthcare workers aren't going to be federally required to get the COVID-19 vaccine in the state and nationwide.
Biden and pro-vaccine advocates argue that the vaccine mandate is necessary to improve vaccination rates. However, opponents warn that the mandate could instead result in severe understaffing if many workers quit so they aren't bullied into getting inoculated.
Visit Resist.news for more news about workers standing up against the oppressive COVID-19 vaccine mandate.